to worry about the accused?

[WitchWay]

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

Why are you referring to me in the 3rd person SuzanneUK? I'm right here on the thread.

Just as your posts are saying I brought up the subject of false rape allegations when in fact, you, amongst others, did.

I do actually really care about rape and sexual violence and rape myths. Hence why I posted that I would have appreciated an apology on your behalf for getting things wrong about me introducing a rape myth subject to this thread.

Too bad that you couldn't just say 'gotcha Beach, it wasn't you who brought it up it was me '

Whatevs, if that is too thick for you.

I wonder if Nicetabard and SabrinaMulhollandJjones are related in any way?

Wanting to give anonimity to all men accused of rape, but not other crimes, sends a clear message that women and girls routinely lie about rape and men need to be protected.

It also puts the safety of enormous amounts of women and girls behind the protection of said small minority of falsely accused men. It's a numbers game. Successive governments have looked at the numbers game and decided that the harm / protection equation is correct with the current situation.

I would be happier for all people accused of all serious crimes, or even all crimes, to retain anonimity. Just not for people accused of one specific crime, usually against one specific group. I guess if all defendents were accused anonimity it would become clear over a decade or 2 whether the harm/protection equation was paying off.

3% of men who are accused of rape, taken in the context of the incredibly small number of women who actually report sexuall assault, is not a lot of men at all. Do a tiny minority off women make up allegations? Yes.Do women rroutinely lie about sexual assault? No. The issue is that when you start protestiy about the false allegations, it sounds a lot like 'women routinely lie. It's damaging to us all.

Life's a beach - but I'm off to real life now.

Be good while I'm away.

I mean I would be happier for all accused of serious crimes etc, than just those accused of rape.

I wouldn't be happy for it to be done for just those accused of rape, at all.

As long as I'm no relation to you, Suzanne....

People who on threads like this show the disdain with which they treat the topic. Almost as if it's an intellectual tog-of-war, rather than a really important topic that adversely affects thousands upon thousands of men women & children (mainly women & children which might explain why the response on MN is so strong).

Get it wrong and people get away with sexually abusing others on a daily basis.

Still so what eh.

3% of the number of men accused is an incredibly small number? Yes?
So the UK has a 3% population who are black, up to 2% of that 3% may be suffering from sickle cell. An incredibly small number? Yes? So we just ignore them?
My point is that each of these people has a life that is just as important as mine or yours and needs to be seen as an individual, not as an "incredibly small number".
Do I think we should be protecting guilty people, no, of course not, and neither does anyone else. However, trial by media is becoming the norm and it needs to stop!

Dinnaeknow exactly. The same with Eddie Shah. Both high profile yet no one else came forward, and as you say only ever committing one offence is rare.

Wanting to give anonimity to all men accused of rape, but not other crimes, sends a clear message that women and girls routinely lie about rape and men need to be protected

Yes, I agree totally. That's why I don't support flat out anonymity for everyone - also because it gives other victims the opportunity to come forward. The only worry is when naming the accused can lead to the identity of the victim.

And I agree with you, Hop too. Instantly bringing up and banging on about false allegations in any discussion about rape does suggest it's a huge problem & will stop women and girls coming forward.

But in the context of a thread on here that's effectively about that, I don't think it's inappropriate to discuss it.

I'm not as clever with words as you lot. But here's my take on it anyhow.

Back in the 70's lots of things were different - far less media for a start, more autonomy in schools, more autonomy by adults etc. Therefore when people felt uncomfortable they often didn't speak out. We know this from history of the modern day.

It's now 2010+. Someone speaks out, the media is far wider, someone hears, they then agree and were in the same situation and they speak out..... Etc.

Our culture has changed and what people accepted 50 years ago they don't accept now. If what they accepted but did not like 50 years ago was criminal they have every right to report it.

As said ^^ whether it can be proved in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is a questionable matter. Just because it can't be proved and just because you didn't speak up at the time makes it no lesser a crime or of no lesser affect on your life.

I hope anyone that deserves justice gets it - whether that be victim or accused.

Oh SuzanneUK, you are a card.

Life's a beach . Hah de fucking ha. Is that some dumbed down insult disguised as humour?

On a thread about sexual offences.

Cheerio.

Regarding anonymity, I was under the impression that, strictly speaking, all defendants of any crime do get anonymity until the case is heard in court.

That's why the papers always say stuff like: "A man has appeared in court charged with XYZ. John Smith spoke only to confirm his name and date of birth".

Theoretically, they are not saying that it's John Smith who's been accused of XYZ - although clearly it is.

Is that right?

People accused of crimes routinely get named in the press. Especially if they are famous and / or it is a (salacious) sex crime.

The media have a lot to answer for over this, look at what they did to that landlord who they were convinced had murdered someone based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that he had slightly crap hair.

Also the way sex crimes are reported is revolting. The titillating tone, the giving enormous unnecessary detail. It's grim, and of no conceivable value to anyone, except pervs.

All of this was raised at that huge enquiry in the wake of the phone hacking, our press is poisonous and their views and values are reflected back in our society.

If the press just reported so and so has been arrested on suspicion of whatever, with no details, then it gives opportunities for other victims to come froward if there are any, but isn't whipping up a witch hunt or causing massive distress to victims, their families by having detailed accounts of what has been alleged plastered all over the headlines.

They do. But the point is, I think there are meant to be laws in place that prevent the naming of people in connection with criminal charges - that's why the papers phrase it like that. Waste of time, of course.

Yes, the press in this country is despicable. I think some of our "news"papers are the worst in the world.

BillyNotQuiteNoMates, the point is that false rape accusations are no more common that false accusations for any other crime. Of course it is wrong that they happen, just as it is wrong that they happen for any other crime.

Another (not unrelated) point is that the vast vast majority of sexual offences are not reported and we know that an important factor in why they are not reported is that women know that they will be accused of lying. And they will be stigmatised. And they will probably be traumatised by the legal process.

It's mostly only girls and women though so I guess it doesn't really matter. Gotta protect that tiny number of men that might be falsely accused. Too bad for those thousands of women eh?! they're only women and they were probably drunk, lying, sluts, asking for it, wearing mini skirts, slept with him before, led him on, liked it really, weren't virgins anyway, insert rape myth here

With the courts the report will be X the defendant was read the charges and spoke only to confirm their name and address.

There is some stuff which is odd around eg If a person is mugged but they don't know who did it they say person was mugged etc as in FACT. If it's court then they will be "mugged" as in some question over it. In the press, this seems to be applied inconsistently and I always think is jarring, as to me when I see so-and-so "rape victim" it reads to me a bit sarcastic, like obviously they weren't an actual victim.

Rape victim.
"Rape victim"

I think they give very different messages and there must be a better way of doing it.

But what YOU are saying Beach is that we ignore that "extremely small number" for "the greater good". Sorry, but I disagree. We need to find a way of protecting and defending innocent people, full stop, regardless of whether they are alleged perpetrator/ victim, whether the crime in question is rape/ murder or any other.

Hettie i don;t think there are any such restrictions in reporting. The press & govt are currently grappling over how to move forward and ideas such as no reporting on arrest only on charge have been put forward, But it's press bread & butter so they are not keen.

Honestly the tabloids in this country cause so much damage IMO. And also IMO the TV news - even BBC - has been getting "worse" in terms of sensationalism in recent years presumably in order to keep up

BillyNotQuiteNoMates. Actually, no, I'm not saying that we ignore it.

I'm saying that we treat it the same as we treat false accusations for other crimes, saying as they happen at the same rate.

That is, as serious when they happen, but thankfully, not very relevant.

BillyNotquiteNoMates

if you grant anonimity to all people accused of rape, then you protect the small number of men falsely accused of rape (for whom there is no foregone conclusion that life will go badly - see earlier posts), and you fail to obtain convictions for serial offenders who are then free to continue committing crime ie raping people.

So it's not as straightforward as you suggest.

The position in the UK, and has been for a while, is that the current rules mean the best overall outcome in terms of harm / protection.

No, Nice, that's not how they report things.

I don't know if you noticed, but after Mikaeel's mother was charged, all the photos of her in the papers suddenly had her face blanked out. That's because it became sub judice to say anything about her or directly connect her to a charge.

You can say that a woman has been charged with murder - but you cannot say who it was that's been charged in the same sentence. You can report that she has appeared in court and what happened, though.

An unworkable distinction, really, since they get round it so easily.

Beach then we agree to an extent - except that you think they should all be named, an I think that none of them should be.

We need to find a way of protecting and defending innocent people, full stop

And we do have a way of protecting and defending innocent people - it is called the open justice system.

We do not need to dwell on or spread rape myths in order for this system to work at its best. Quite the contrary.